Thursday, 16 May 2013

TweetThere’s a good
reason why all the mockups and impressions of the proposed Severn Barrage show
a road across the top.Although the scheme’s
proponents talk about the barrage itself being entirely privately financed, it is unlikely that
the barrage would ever be built without the public sector financing that such a
road requires.

In theory, it
could be a rail link rather than a road link – a 21st century alternative to the
Severn Tunnel would surely be worth having.The proposed barrage is really in the wrong place for that though – the alternative
(smaller and less environmentally damaging) Shoots Barrage would be much better
placed to form part of HS3 – Wales’ link to the European rail network.So road it would be.

That of course
means connecting it to the M4; and I do wonder whether any of the proponents
has really looked at a map to consider the implications of a four or six lane
highway between Lavernock and the M4.

Assuming that little
problem could be overcome, it also raises the question as to how such a road
would be funded in practice.For reasons
which escape me, and which seem to defy logic, most, if not all, of our elected
politicians seem to be wedded to the idea that road tolls are a very bad idea
unless the road crosses a stretch of water, in which case they become a very
good idea.So much so that two parties
(Labour and Plaid) are now in favour of using roads-which-cross-water as a
source of taxation revenue to fund other projects.

It’s probably
reasonable to suppose therefore that any new road crossing would be funded by
tolls and that those tolls would have to be set at a higher level than the
tolls for the existing crossings – the proposed bridge is, after all,
considerably longer than either of the existing crossings and more expensive to
build in consequence.

Using the logic
applied when the second Severn Crossing was opened, we can’t really have a
situation where the crossings are priced differently, since few people would
then use the higher-priced crossings.So
I think we can assume that all three crossings would be priced at the new
higher level – and that such tolls would continue for the foreseeable future,
rather than being reduced (or even abolished) at the end of the current
contract period.

So how much of
a leap is it really to say that those politicians and others supporting the Hain barrage are,
in effect, also supporting not just the retention of Severn tolls but
increasing them to a higher level and maintaining them at that level for the
indefinite future?